Posted by The Taint on 6/26/2013 12:10:00 PM (view original):You're ok with a Supreme Court judge being biased in his rulings? Possibly because he profits from it?

I'm OK with knowing that he probably is biased in his rulings for some reason. Republicans don't appoint liberal judges, Democrats don't appoint conservative judges. Do you disagree?

Not for the most part but if a Supreme Court justice is showing bias in his decisions because he may profit fom it, we have a problem and its not ok.

Appointing SCJ for life is stupid. First, I'm sure all of them can make a "sound" argument for ruling one way or another for whatever reason. Second, the only way to remove them is thru the impeachment process. You'd never be able to impeach a SCJ based on a ruling that he somehow profits from unless he's cashing checks written to him.

One rogue judge making a possibly biased ruling, in conjunction with a Governor and a state's Attorney General who refuse to defend a law for whatever their own reasons, can override the will of the people.

Unless and until Walker's specific ruling is affirmed ultimately by SCOTUS, it's still an open ended issue and I assume can still be legally challenged.

It shouldn't need to be the state that appeals Prop 8. It wasn't enacted by the state. It was enacted by a popular vote of the citizens. Those citizens SHOULD have legal grounds to defend their democratic actions. It absolutely bothers me how things have gone with respect to this proposition. I don't like the fact that a legally passed Proposition - which I think more states should allow - that doesn't explicitly violate the state or federal Constitutions has basically been invalidated because the same democratically voting public that passed the law isn't legally allowed to defend it.

Clearly, you don't understand what happened this morning. SCOTUS made no ruling about the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Do you think it did?

I live in Connecticut, which is a SSM legal state. Do you believe that today's ruling prevents an initiative similar to CA's Proposition 8 from going on the ballot in CT (or any other SSM state) for popular vote?

If such an initiative was voted on and passed, and SSM was abolished in CT as a result, that SCOTUS's ruling today automatically kicks in and says that such a vote was unconstitutional, and nullifies the result of the vote?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):It shouldn't need to be the state that appeals Prop 8. It wasn't enacted by the state. It was enacted by a popular vote of the citizens. Those citizens SHOULD have legal grounds to defend their democratic actions. It absolutely bothers me how things have gone with respect to this proposition. I don't like the fact that a legally passed Proposition - which I think more states should allow - that doesn't explicitly violate the state or federal Constitutions has basically been invalidated because the same democratically voting public that passed the law isn't legally allowed to defend it.

Clearly, you don't understand what happened this morning. SCOTUS made no ruling about the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Do you think it did?

I live in Connecticut, which is a SSM legal state. Do you believe that today's ruling prevents an initiative similar to CA's Proposition 8 from going on the ballot in CT (or any other SSM state) for popular vote?

If such an initiative was voted on and passed, and SSM was abolished in CT as a result, that SCOTUS's ruling today automatically kicks in and says that such a vote was unconstitutional, and nullifies the result of the vote?